Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Self-congratulations 

I can't resist noting this:
CLEVELAND--The Greater Cleveland Sports Commission has been named "2007 Sports Commission of the Year" by the National Association of Sports Commissions.

The award was chosen by a national panel of Sports Commission executives and was presented at the 2008 NASC Sports Event Symposium held in Omaha.
What possible purpose can a National Association of Sports Commissions serve?

Sports Econ Musings 

A Real-Time Economic Indicator from Sports World: One of my colleagues returned from Talladega, reporting that crowds for the Sprint Cup and Nationwide Series races were way off from last year. He described the Nationwide attendance as sparse.

Free-Agency & MLBPA: Buck Martinez (TBS Analyst for NYY-Cleveland Game)went to some lengths describing the pressure put on C.C. Sabbathia, potentially the marquee free agent pitcher for next off-season, by the MLBPA to follow through and become a free agent rather than resign -- which is what Sabbathia says he prefers. Martinez' imputed rationale for the MLBPA is that getting the top guy on the market sets higher prices for everyone. That's a testable proposition for the sports economists out there with the free agent data sets -- does a higher quality player in the pool raise average offers?

My Ongoing NBA Playoff Beef: (See "Where Hardly Any Game Matters") Sixers beat the Pistons in Detroit, win in Philly, but must win two more to advance and one more to put the Pistons at the very brink of elimination. In spite of the Sixers play, there's been about as much drama as a Seton Hall-Providence matchup. A Celtic-Lakers matchup may be entertaining, but getting there will seem a lot like the WWF.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, April 28, 2008

The Dynamo stadium game 

The Houston Dynamo, having failed to secure a publicly funded stadium in their prior guise as the San Jose Earthquakes, are now hitting some snags on the same issue in Houston. The terms of the deal are not quite clear from the stories in the press - $20m worth of city land, a city-owned but Dynamo financed stadium [?] - but the relocation card has been played by the reigning two-time MLS champions. Mayor Bill White did not take well to the ploy, and the media has his back. I don't think the mayor would lose an election by standing up to AEG, who own "more sports teams and events than any other company in the world," including the Dynamo. And surely AEG can't maximize the value of this franchise by barnstorming from city to city. Stay tuned!

Allan Sanderson: Consider the Options 

Allan Sanderson tells his readers that TANSTAAFO (Olympics, not lunch).
Whether to support the Games themselves or merely the city's official bid, the latter carrying a price tag of $50 million to $100 million, one hears that "only private money" is underwriting those activities; no tax dollars will be spent. "Private" implicitly refers to donations from corporations and wealthy citizens. However, in jargon that students learn on the first day of Economics 101, virtually all expenditures or allocations have an opportunity cost, whether it be for a firm or family.

If Boeing, Sears, Motorola or McDonald's gives $1 million to help finance our Olympic bid, that is $1 million that does not get returned to stockholders as dividends or plowed back into the company for new projects and production. In addition, that is $1 million that does not, then, support an exhibition at the Field Museum, a new gallery at the Art Institute, or an after-school youth program.

When I sit down each December to write out checks to local, national and international charities and other non-profit organizations, I am implicitly choosing how to allocate, say, $2,000 among various groups and activities. The slice that goes to WTTW Ch. 11 doesn't go to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless or the American Cancer Society—or to the University of Chicago. It's still just $1 million or $2,000 no matter how a corporation, a wealthy benefactor or I cut it.

There is no free lunch in this world and no free Olympic Games either.

Via Stephen Karlson.

Labels: , ,


Sunday, April 27, 2008

Money on the line 

Following up on Robert's post (& Nick's comment) on the NFL draft, check out this article by the Dallas Morning News' Rick Gosselin.
Blame all this on Max Starks.

Starks started on the offensive line in the Super Bowl for the Pittsburgh Steelers three Januarys ago. But he couldn't hold onto his starting position, losing the right tackle spot to Willie Colon last training camp.

Starks wound up starting only four games for the Steelers in 2007. He became a disposable player, right?

Starks became a free agent this off-season, but the Steelers slapped a transition tag on him to prevent him from leaving. They were willing to guarantee him $6.8 million in 2008 to have him ride their bench again.

That displayed the value of offensive linemen in today's NFL – and the 2008 draft drove that point home.

Michigan's Jake Long became the first offensive tackle selected No. 1 overall in a draft since 1997 when the Miami Dolphins gave him that honor Saturday.

Seven more offensive tackles were selected in the next 25 picks – and Atlanta, Carolina and Kansas City traded up to get theirs. That's eight offensive tackles in the first round.
There is an element of anecdote to this, but 8 tackles out of the first 25 picks is really a stunning figure. I'd be interested to see some time series data on picks by position in the first round. Surely this is a) an outlier and b) unlikely to persist. Has Michael Lewis ignited a fad? I imagine that Richard Thaler would argue that he has.

Britain's jock tax may haunt them 

Britain is apparently the only country in the world that taxes endorsement income of non-residents. So when Tiger Woods plays in The Open Championship, he has to send a check to the British Treasury for income he earns from, say, his Buick endorsements. This borders on extortion, and tournament organizers are paying notice. Here is Kevin Mitchell, writing in The Guardian:
When the Prime Minister addressed a schools sports conference in Telford in February, the 2012 Olympics awarded to London were supposed to be the nation's feel-good centrepiece for nine major international sporting tournaments, starting with the the 2009 World Twenty20 and the 2010 Ryder Cup in south Wales.

Mr Brown had good reason to be cheerful. The next Ryder Cup was in the bag, obviously, as were the London Olympics, the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the 2014 Ryder Cup at Gleneagles, and the 2019 Cricket World Cup. But now, thanks to a fastidious and, no doubt, smug desk Johnny at the Inland Revenue responsible for pointing out the devil in the detail of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act of 1988, four of the events yet to be allocated - the 2013 rugby league World Cup, the 2015 rugby union World Cup, Euro 2016, and the 2018 football World Cup - are all in jeopardy.

And here is why. When Thierry Henry steps on to the Old Trafford turf on Tuesday night for the second leg of Barcelona's Champions League semi-final against Manchester United, it will cost the Barça star more than he bargained for. The Revenue's little squeeze, unearthed by said clever-clogs tax mandarin, means Henry, like all visiting international athletes and entertainers who are handsomely rewarded by major sponsors, will have to declare his endorsements and pay a slice of the income from his high-profile global sponsor, Gillette, to the Revenue. No other country in the world applies such a charge - and that seemingly inconsequential quirk is discouraging international sports governing bodies such as Uefa, Fifa, the International Cricket Council and the International Rugby Board from favourably considering staging their events in this country.

If their admittedly pampered practitioners baulk at coming to the UK because of the tax, their event is diminished. The easy alternative, of course, is to take it somewhere else. And, as we have seen with the Champions League, that is already happening.

When the Treasury were made aware of this issue, through a legal challenge in May 2006 by Andre Agassi, they predictably dug their heels in - despite the American tennis player's reasonable assertion that he did not live in this country and that the payments went not directly to him but to a service company, which is common practice.

Agassi brought the action after receiving a demand for £27,500 on his endorsement earnings in the UK during the 1998-99 tax year. The Law Lords ruled that Nike and Head, his sponsors, benefited from his presence at Wimbledon - and so did he. Which is hard to argue with - if you don't take account of the knock-on effect the ruling has. And that is not the brief of civil servants. These are bottom-line merchants and, in the case of the Revenue, that is only about money.

It was a crucial victory for the keepers of the national purse. Had they lost they faced paying out millions to superstar athletes and entertainers stretching back over 18 years. Indeed, when HM Revenue and Customs won the case, they decided to turn the screw even further.

Initially, they calculated the tax as a percentage of 365 working days in a year. They then concluded that, as nobody works every day of the year, they would reduce that total significantly to take into account holidays and time off for injury - so their cut went up accordingly. What started as an isolated case has mushroomed into a serious problem for sport and the government.

'Two major international sports stars, a golfer and a tennis player, are considering not coming here for some tournaments this summer,' a well placed source tells me. 'They will compete at Wimbledon and The Open, obviously, but bypass smaller events. This has already happened and one big golf event last year attracted a poor field because of this tax.'

Henry shares the Gillette spotlight with two obvious suspects in this regard: Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. There is little chance of Woods not playing in The Open, or Federer boycotting Wimbledon. But, for various reasons, they will not be lighting up our summer anywhere else.

Already, Federer opts out of Queen's in favour of the grass of the Halle tournament in Germany. And Woods plays only in those tournaments where his presence is adequately compensated - adequate being $3million. The richest sportsman in the world earns about £1m a week, whether he is swinging a club or not, so he is unlikely to look favourably on handing over any of that to the British taxman.

Friday, April 25, 2008

From Moneyball to Blind Side 

Michael Lewis writes some interesting books on the sporting labour market. Moneyball has been widely discussed, The Blind Side less so. In The Blind Side, Lewis tells the story of Michael Oher, a a massive left tackle who ends up going to Ole Miss on a football scholarship after literally walking out of the tough side of town in Memphis while he was in high school.

Around this amazing personal story, Lewis tells the story of how the Left Tackle position (the offensive linesman whose primary purpose is to protect the (right-handed) Quarterback from being hit on his blind side) has evolved into one ofthe highest paid and most important positions in American football.

Interesting then, that the Miami Dolphins announced they would use their No. 1 pick in the NFL Draft to secure:
Jake Long, the University of Michigan offensive lineman, with their first pick — all 2.01 metres (six foot seven) and 143 kilograms (315 pounds) of him. Then they announced they'd pay him $A61.2 million over five years. The salary's a record — it makes him the highest-paid offensive lineman in the comp

This story was interesting enough to make The Age newspaper in Melbourne (Australia not Florida...). Locals, over to you for more NFL Draft commentary.

How big can cricket get? 

A guy from Mexia, Texas (I've been there!) thinks it can get really really big:
Billionaire Sir Allen Stanford believes Twenty20 cricket can replace football as the biggest game in world sport.

The Texan told BBC Sport he was ready to invest in an English version of the Indian Premier League and predicted it could be worth as much as £500m.

"Twenty20 has the potential to be the most popular team sport in the whole world in maybe less than 10 years.

"But it's going to take a highly organised, highly efficient management team to run this show," he said.
That, and more I suspect. From a US standpoint, cricket seems an unlikely prospect. But India & other places are growing, and American baseball does not have any kind of edge over cricket there, as far as I can see.

Update
: Here is some information on the Twenty20 version of cricket. They've tweaked the rules to make the contest watchable and tv friendly.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Canadiens riot 

Christian Trudeau sends this:
MONTREAL - Montreal police said Tuesday that they expected to make more arrests following Monday night's riot after a Canadiens hockey win led to a riot downtown.

Sixteen people have already been arrested.

There were no major injuries, but one policewoman was slightly hurt during the incidents which occurred as fans leaving the Bell Centre took over the streets.

All those arrested were men, three were minors. Some 10 businesses were damaged as well as 16 cars. Some police vehicles were set ablaze during the incident and police estimate damages to their cars at about $500,000.

The 16 people arrested face a number of charges - including breaking and entering a business, armed assault on a police officer, mischief on a police vehicle, assault and various bylaw infractions.

Two 17-year-old males and another 14-year-old boy are among those arrested by police.

Police say they will be out in force after the next game, Thursday, and that they may shutdown some downtown streets.

Closing off public access to Ste. Catherine St. after playoff hockey games is a possibility to avoid violence in the future, said Montreal police Chief Yvan Delorme.

While refusing to talk specifically about strategy, Delorme hinted that shutting the street down was an option even before last night's melee.

"We have to work with the different merchants on Ste. Catherine St. We have to work together on that but it is a possibility in the future," Delorme said.

The incident broke out hours after the Montreal Canadiens eliminated the Boston Bruins from the NHL playoffs.
Bizarre behavior (a first round playoff victory spawning a riot??)... Shutting down streets is a pretty significant negative spillover.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Problems in St. Louis' Downtown Revitalization. 


A couple of weeks ago, Skip had a post on the lack of development beyond the left-field wall at St. Louis' Busch stadium. The vacant field, seen clearly in this picture and in this image from Google maps, was to become a ballpark village. But that plan has at least been temporarily scuttled by Centene's plans not to relocate to new office space there.

A recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch article notes how difficult it has been for new development projects to get up and running in downtown St. Louis, even with a brand new stadium. The author notes a kind of multiplier effect: when one project fails, several other unconnected projects may also fail.
Business owners usually revel in vanquishing their competition. But when Steve Roberts wears his hat as a downtown St. Louis developer, he roots for competitors.

Indeed, Roberts, a principal in St. Louis-based Roberts Brothers Properties, is concerned about the broader impact of projects stalling or dying.

If the adage that success breeds success, then the reverse could be true: Failure is contagious.

"When you have projects or developers failing it raises suspicions in the minds of potential investors, retailers and even residents," Roberts said. "I don't think one particular project can take down the whole downtown renovation effort, but if you have multiple ones for different reasons, it hurts those of us who have been sowing our fields for many years."
Frequent readers of TSE know that we here generally (generally?) do not support public funding for stadiums. Although the a-priori studies claim stadiums are magnets for development and economic activity, the ex-post studies tell a much different story.

Labels: , ,


Sunday, April 20, 2008

Taking It On the Chin Again 

Longtime readers of the Sports Economist may recall that I have taken my fair share of abuse from the print media in the past. I have been a critic of subsidies for professional sports facility construction for years, and this doesn't always sit well with people -- cough cough sports reporters cough cough -- who have a vested interest in subsidizing sports stadiums and arenas -- cough cough team owners cough cough. A couple of years ago, a Washington DC sports columnist called me a "clown" in his column after I pointed out that subsidies for the new stadium for the Nationals were a bad idea.

I have moved up here to Edmonton, in the Great White North, where the powers that be have decided it's time for a new arena for the beloved Oilers. Last Friday, I gave a lunchtime speech to the Economics Society of Northern Alberta with my usual spiel about the lack of tangible economic benefits from a new arena. Today, I was skewered in the Edmonton Sun by sports columnist John Short who seems to have taken offense at the idea that a shiny new arena for the Oilers on the public dime isn't the best thing since sliced bread. Among the gems in his column

He's an outsider and can't possibly know how much our pride and ego is worth.

Worse, he's an American. He can't know anything about hockey. Background knowledge in this case can't possibly count for anything.

Thanks for the warm welcome to town, John. I don't really feel at home somewhere until I have been pilloried in the local press by a sports columnist. It lets me know I'm still doing my job.

Labels: ,


Saturday, April 19, 2008

Private Ownership in Australian Rugby? 

Will the rugby union 'elite' overcome their history and start selling equity in rugby union Super 14 franchises in Australia?

15 years ago the sport was amateur, but now rugby seems to be on a path of private ownership. Check this out in The Weekend Australian and at the Australian Rugby Union's website. For a code best known in this nation as a traditional bastion of conservatism, amateurism and self-declared elitism, this is a most radical step indeed.

Wayne Smith, journalist for The Weekend Australian thinks this step (only 20 or 30 years after any other sport in Australian has tried it-and mostly failed to make it work) will leave the other codes Down Under shaking in their football boots.

I can't quite see that myself Wayne-o old chap. If Super 14s Rugby gets two games on Friday night free to air (FTA) TV (like the National Rugby League), or 700,000 participants (like soccer), or 7 million annual attendees and 1 in 38 Australians as club season ticket holders (like the Australian Footbal League) then maybe. But rugby is a long way off any of that with an operating loss of $4.3 million after operating revenue of $77 million, a third-tier national competiton abandoned after just one season, participation at 190,000 and falling, and limited exposure on FTA TV.

A New Stadium and a Bargaining Chip for the NFL? 

Edward Roski Jr. has unveiled plans to build a new stadium in the Los Angeles metro area to entice a team to move to the nation's second-largest market.

The proposed 600-acre site, near the southern intersection of the 57 and 60 freeways about 20 miles east of Los Angeles, would be surrounded by a shopping mall, and located on a vacant property which Roski already owns. Roski said around 12 million people live within 25 miles of the site.

“We are aware of it and are monitoring all stadium-related developments in southern California,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said from his New York office.

Roski said the cost would be around $800 million, adding the stadium will be built into a hillside meaning far less steel will be required. And that, he said will result in a cost of about $400 million less than it might be otherwise.

Roski notes that there will be no public money involved in the construction of the stadium. The LA market that has been without a team since 1995, probably in part because it is such a lucrative threat point for teams seeking public funding for new stadiums in their current cities.

So, how does this announcement change the stadium game being played by the Minnesota Vikings, who have been trying for years to replace the Metrodome, and the other three teams mentioned in the article as possible tenants (the Saints, the Jaguars, and the Chargers)?

Labels: ,


Free Agency for the Australian Football League? 

The Australian Football League has arguably the most restrictive labour market regulations of any pro sport; a player draft, a (relatively hard) salary cap, and player roster restrictions. No free agency of any kind.

According to The Weekend Australian, the CEO of the AFL Players' Association, Mr Brendan Gale, will be meeting the AFL Commission on Monday April 21 to discuss the prospect of some form of veteran free agency. Putting aside the legal arguments surroundingthe common law restraint of trade for now (where the AFLPA has long been a corporate version of 'idle threat man'), Gale is running with the argument that:
'AFL footy clubs sell hope' so 'if a club has a glaring deficiency they can address through free agency, doesn't that help them sell hope? Doesn't it make them more competitive and help competitive balance?'

I like the first line about selling hope. The rest is open to debate.

Friday, April 18, 2008

If You Build It, They Will Come 

Maybe.

If they are subsidized.
The Minnesota Ballpark Authority is expected to announce today a $1 million fund to enhance the area around the Twins new ballpark.
Maybe.

Labels: ,


Timeout's and strategy 

Jon Wiseman gives the NBA's timeout strategy crown to Nate McMillan and the Portland Trailblazers, based on post-timeout scoring margin. Curiously, guru Phil's LA lakers rank relatively low on this metric. I'd be interested to know how significant the difference in scoring margin is between the Blazers & Lakers, @ 2.4 points per team, and whether the stat is truly meaningful. Calling Dave Berri!

Labels: ,


"Who elected these NCAA people?" 

Here we go again on the BCS - antitrust - legislative hearing merry-go-round:
Three members of Congress want the Justice Department to investigate whether the Bowl Championship Series is an illegal enterprise.

Representatives Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii; Lynn Westmoreland, Republican of Georgia; and Mike Simpson, Republican of Idaho, introduced a resolution saying the B.C.S. restricts trade because only the largest universities compete in its games. The resolution would require the Justice Department’s antitrust division to investigate if the B.C.S. violates federal law.

The measure, if it passes, would put Congress on record as supporting a postseason playoff.

The three lawmakers represent home-state universities with recent complaints against the B.C.S.

“Who elected these N.C.A.A. people?” Abercrombie said at a news conference Thursday on Capitol Hill while gripping a souvenir University of Hawaii football. “Who are they to decide who competes for the championship?"

LOL! I'm not exactly the NCAA's mouthpiece, but I'd much rather that the NCAA -- not congress -- designed and managed the competition.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Florida house votes to drop subsidy payments 

The Florida House has passed a $65.1 billion budget for fiscal 2009 that withholds state sales tax revenue previously pledged toward professional sports team venues, which could adversely impact outstanding debt and credit ratings.

At a time when revenues supporting Florida's budget are declining rapidly, especially sales and real estate taxes, lawmakers said they could not justify funding venues for billionaire owners of sports franchises while at the same time approving budget cuts affecting the state's "most vulnerable citizens."

The budget was approved 72 to 41 last Thursday, but the amendment placing a year-long freeze on the sales tax subsidy was passed unanimously by a voice vote.

Rep. Ron Saunders, D-Monroe County, said many lawmakers who supported the subsidy in the past did so believing it contributed to economic development. Saunders said his amendment would prohibit the Department of Revenue from distributing sales tax revenues to sports franchises in fiscal 2009, but the Legislature could resume the payments in fiscal 2010.

"The notion of funding sports franchises when we're really going to be taking over $1 billion from our most vulnerable citizens in our state would shock people," Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, said in support of Saunders' amendment. "[This] will show the citizens of our state that our priorities are with them and not with billionaires and not with sports franchises but with the people, the students, the teachers, the medically needy, and the children of our state."

A number of cities, counties, and conduit issuers have sold debt backed by the state sales tax for new or renovated football, baseball, basketball, and hockey venues across Florida. The exact amount of debt sold was not immediately available but the subsidy has been available for nearly 20 years.

In 1991, lawmakers enacted a statute with a funding mechanism for state support of the construction of professional sports facilities in Florida. The law allows specified teams to qualify to receive $2 million of state sales taxes annually over 30 years. The law allows the pledged revenue to be used to back bonds.

"Clearly this money has been pledged for debt service and it was statutorily allowed to be pledged for debt service," said Randy Hanna, managing shareholder at Bryant Miller Olive LLP. "For [the state] to remove that money would violate the contract that the state has with the bondholders."

Bryant Miller Olive was bond counsel on the sales tax securitization of bonds for the construction of Raymond James Stadium for the National Football League's Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Other teams that received the subsidy include the NFL's Jacksonville Jaguars, the National Hockey League's Tampa Bay Lightning and Florida Panthers, Major League Baseball's Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays, and the National Basketball Association's Miami Heat and Orlando Magic.

It is not clear to me if the sports franchises and/or owners of sports facilities (local sports commissions) would be on the hook for the withdrawn subsidy. Regardless, shafting the bondholders is an old government trick. The original law which led to a slew of statewide subsidies may look foolish when weighed against other priorities in the state budget, but this may be a case of one bad policy begetting another. Read the whole thing at The Bond Buyer.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

"Technological Doping"? - The Speedo LZR 

Swimming has its version of the aluminum bat, an improvement in capital design that makes "labor" very productive, at least in an absolute sense. Maybe too much so:

Since its debut at the Missouri Grand Prix in February, the new Speedo LZR swimsuit has made nearly as many waves out of the pool as it has in it. With 18 of 19 record-setting, long-course swims – the same pool format of the Olympics – and 17 of 18 record-setting short course swims for the LZR dating back to its inception, Speedo has had to withstand charges of “technological doping” from those in the swimming community and beyond.

FINA, the international governing body for swimming, met with the world’s top swimsuit manufacturers in an emergency meeting Saturday to determine whether the suit and others like it were giving certain athletes an unfair competitive advantage. Though FINA endorsed the suit for a second time and decided to allow other suit makers to copy the design, some in the swimming community have begun to take the matter into their own hands.

The NCAA men’s National Championships, the Italian Olympic Trials and the Canadian Olympic Trials are among meets that have banned the LZR – as well as TYR’s new swimsuit, dubbed the Tracer – from competition.

Given the discussion on this post and this post recently, I looked to see if there was anything regarding the official Olympic (i.e. event organizer position) on this swimsuit. Perhaps readers have seen something, but I couldn't find anything in a quick GIS. But it wouldn't surprise me if Olympic officials would like to see its use.

Labels: , ,


The NFL’s $116 million question 

The NFL’s salary cap has been set at roughly $116 million for the 2008 season. The salary cap is set equal 57.5% of the projected total revenue for the average team in the league. Total revenue includes the national televison contract, ticket sales, and NFL merchandise sales as well other local sources of revenue including such other items as naming rights and local advertising. While less well advertised, the NFL also has a salary floor equal to 86.4% of the cap in 2008, or about $100 million.

Although the NFL has the most equally distributed revenue of any of the big four American leagues, mainly thanks to the evenly shared national television contract, large differentials have recently become evident between teams at the top such as the Redskins and Cowboys and those at the bottom like the Vikings and Falcons.

So, what does a league do when team salaries are mandated for all teams as a percentage of average team revenues which can be pushed upwards by the high revenues of a handful of large market teams? The function for determining the salary cap and floor can easily create a situation where the cap and floor are simply unaffordable for some teams if revenue disparities grow too great. It's potentially a formula for putting some of their own teams out of business. Already the minimum team salary requirements exceed 50% of expected revenues for a number of teams in the league.

Look for this to be a major source of concern as the NFL looks ahead to the renegotiation of its collective bargaining agreement in the next couple of years.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

More on Doping 

Skip had an interesting post on doping last week that prompted more discussion in the comments. I have been working on several research projects related to the economics of doping for the past year or so (with little to show for it except a paper on last year's WEA program and a folder full of rejection letters, but that's another story). The use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes continues to get quite a bit of coverage in the popular press. The gist of much of the reportage on doping falls into a few predictable categories: (1) the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes is rampant, or at least more widespread than the general public suspects; (2) the use of these substances is a travesty, scathing indictment of the sorry state of sport, a horrible consequence of the corrosive effect of money on the purity of sport, etc.; and (3) Something Drastic Must Be Done ASAP.

Take, for example, an article in Sunday's New York Times about doping in athletics. Track coach Trevor Graham is going on trial next month on drug and money laundering charges related to doping among world-class sprinters. Point (1) comes out in the first paragraph

When one of the most successful coaches in the history of track and field goes on trial next month in the long-running federal investigation into doping in sports, lawyers for both sides are prepared to reveal that cheating in track is far more widespread than previously known.
Points (2) and (3) are scattered throughout the article, with references to "underside of track and field" and tales of Federal regulators ruthlessly stamping out this scourge.

From the perspective of economics, much of this seems to miss the interesting parts. We know this: athletes, even at the highest level, have different abilities and all face strong and clear incentives to improve their performance. There is a lot of strategic interaction among athletes, and the compensation system in tournaments skews earnings significantly. Both of these factors amplifiy the consequences of outcomes. And to top it all off, the use of performance enhancing drugs is very difficult to detect, and the regulators and chemists are in an "arms race" that the regulators can't possibly win. Athletes face powerful economic incentives to dope and have easy access to new doping methods that are hard to detect. Under these conditions, many will use performance enhancing drugs, and most will get away with it.

The interesting economic angle relates to the question Rod Fort raised in the comments: "does anybody on the revenue generation side really care?" My answer is no. Event organizers desire absolute quality to increase interest in their events. World records, amazing performances that go well beyond what 99% of the population can do, "the human drama of athletic competition" bit. Sports fans, especially casual sports fans, are primarily interested in extraordinary performances. During the McGwire-Sosa home run race a few years ago, how many people said "I'm not paying attention because they are both on the juice?" Plenty of incentives exist to look the other way on the doping issue on the revenue generation side, but nobody pays much attention to it.

I realize that there are very important cost issues here as well, but I'm just sayin' ...

Labels: , ,


Saturday, April 12, 2008

Pete Rose's Bets: How Smart? 

Most readers will recall that Pete Rose has been banned from baseball for betting on the game. Rutgers Professor Douglas Coate does the sums on the bets listed in the Dowd Report as having been made by Rose:
In this paper the betting on baseball games from April 8, 1987 to May 12, 1987 attributed to Pete Rose in the Dowd Report to the Commissioner of Baseball is analyzed. The results show Rose lost $4,200 betting on the Cincinnati Reds, the team which he managed; $36,000 betting on other teams in the National League, and $7,000 on his American League wagers. These losses, which include about $20,000 to $25,000 in transaction fees are small relative to the $450,000 in winning and losing bets (including the transaction fees) and are consistent with an informational efficient market. Assuming these bets are Rose's, his expertise (24 years as a player, 4 years as a manager, major league leader in games played) was not an advantage when betting on his own team, on other teams in his league that he studied and competed against, or on teams in the other major league.
Rose typically bet four or more baseball games each day, in addition to a bet on the Reds (always to win, apparently). Coate doesn't include betting on NBA games (see exhibit 16 of the Dowd report, which shows winning and losing bets on NBA spreads). It would be interesting to test the null hypothesis that Rose's wagering on MLB and NBA games was equally futile.

Labels: ,


Friday, April 11, 2008

A Further Thought on Skip's Post on Chester 

Regarding Skip's post on Chester, Pa.'s forthcoming soccer stadium.

Statistics show why the Philadelphia Inquirer called Chester ``five square miles of misery.'' Unemployment of 9 percent is almost double the state average; the violent crime rate was second-highest among Pennsylvania cities in 2006; and its schools ranked lowest in the state in 2001, government figures show.

The stadium is positioned as a springboard for the latest effort at economic revival, with $500 million to be invested in adjacent condominiums, stores and restaurants. All told, the project will generate about 1,000 permanent jobs and $19 million in annual tax revenue, said Nick Sakiewicz, chief executive officer of the team ownership group.

According to this 2006 data (I downloaded the national data (i.e. "download Excel of entire table")), of 8,251 US cities listed, only 28 of them had violent crimes per 1,000 citizens of 25 or above. Chester, 26.5, was one of them. That's in the whole US! And in terms of murders per 1,000 residents, there were only 66 in the US that had murder rates of 0.49 or above. Chester, 0.49, was one of them.

I posted the following in the comments to Skip's post.

With a violent crime rate so high, that's going to affect people's decision a. to come to the stadium and b. to hang around afterwards.

If you build it, they won't necessarily come. But if you build in in a crime-infested area, they'll be even less-likely to come.


Thursday, April 10, 2008

Can soccer rescue Chester? 

Michael Leeds and Andrew Zimbalist don't think so, and both facts and common sense would seem to be on their side. Oddly, "Philadelphia Soccer Team Gets Welcome Mat to Rescue Chester" is the title of the story which covers this issue.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Shermer on doping 

Michael Shermer is a columnist at Scientific American who is increasingly interested in Economics. His recent book, The Mind of the Market might be well worth your perusal.

His current column at Scientific American examines doping in sport from both an economic and a personal perspective (Shermer is an avid competitive cyclist). Since it is free it's definitely worth checking out. Here's the economic essence of the piece:
To end doping in sports, the doping game must be restructured so that competing clean is in a Nash equilibrium. That is, the governing bodies of each sport must change the payoff values of the expected outcomes identified in the game matrix. First, when other players are playing by the rules, the payoff for doing likewise must be greater than the payoff for cheating. Second, and perhaps more important, even when other players are cheating, the payoff for playing fair must be greater than the payoff for cheating. Players must not feel like suckers for following the rules.
He lists five changes that would push incentives in this direction. Hat tip: Steve Levitt at Freakonomics.

St. Louis redevelopment? 

From John Brattain's Pujols Awards column in The Hardball Times:
(Submitted by Ryan Buck)

I'd like to nominate the St. Louis Cardinals, the City of St. Louis, the Cordish Company, and the Centene Corporation for a Luis. The New Busch Stadium is entering its third season and still no progress has been made on the much-promised Ballpark Village. In fact, the proposed plan completely fell apart today. So instead of a multi-million dollar urban redevelopment it looks like St. Louis will have to put up with a vacant lot (filled with weeds and a murky rainwater pond, fittingly referred to as Lake DeWitt) for a little while longer. If you're not familiar with our eyesore over the leftfield wall you will certainly have the chance to get acquainted during next year's All-Star Game.
Brattain's commentary:
Wow … a ball team reneging on agreements made in securing a new ballpark? Who knew? Ryan is bang on, though—MLB is like the Casanova trying to get into a girl’s knickers. He’ll promise anything but once the deed is done don’t expect your calls to be returned—and never expect child support.
I've been traveling and have been short on blog time. Does anyone know about this?

Update: Pete Toms discusses the issue at The Biz of Baseball, with lots of links to stories in the St. Louis press.

Friday, April 04, 2008

From Rags to Riches 

The player's union has just released the 2008 player salaries for Major League Soccer. The gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots" is simply startling. With a guaranteed salary of $6.5 million, David Beckham will earn 200 times the MLS senior player minimum of $33,000 per year and over 500 times the $12,900 "developmental player" contract minimum. In fact Beckham will command over 15% of the total player compensation pool for the league in 2008. The six highest paid players in the league (Beckham, Cuauhtemoc Blanco, Juan Pablo Angel, Marcelo Gallardo, Claudio Reyna, and Landon Donovan) account for over one-third of the total league's compensation.

By comparison, the NBA with its monster contracts comes nowhere close to this level of inequality. In his heyday, Kevin Garnett earned less than 1.7% of the total league's salary and this year, as the league's highest paid player, commands "only" 1.1% of the league's total salary pool. Add together KG, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and the 10 next highest paid NBA players, and they still don't add up to Beckham's 15% of league salaries. The salaries of 45 highest paid NBA stars are required to equal the same percentage as the "Big 6" in MLS.

Although Garnett still makes 50 times the NBA's minimum, in terms of income distribution, the NBA looks like Sweden while the MLS looks more like Brazil. Well, in general I would guess that MLS doesn't mind being compared to Brazil.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 

Its issues, via The Onion.

Taxation run amuck 

Cactus League Edition:
Spring training may have a $30 million economic impact in the Tucson area. But taxes from those visitors aren't enough to pay for stadium improvements, a group of business leaders told the Pima County Board of Supervisors Tuesday.

So to keep spring training from leaving, the community needs to pay an extra half-cent sales tax on restaurants and "amusements," like movies, theater and concert tickets, bowling, billiards, carnivals, fairs and other sporting events, and not just rely on tourist items like hotels and rental cars. The group, calling itself Bases Loaded Tucson, has prepared draft legislation calling for creation of a regional authority empowered to impose those taxes.
This is nuts! If the impact is so great, then cover your costs at the source: the gate to the damned stadium. If fans are not willing to pay for stadium improvements, the improvements are not worth it. Don't push these costs onto the back of the local bowling league.

Australian Conference of Economists (ACE) 2008 

The 2008 Australian Conference of Economists (ACE) is this year being held on the sunny Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, between 30 September and 4 October.

Dr Liam Lenten of La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia is seeking contributors for a specialist sports economics stream for the 2008 conference. This would be a great development for sports economics in this nation.

Prospective attendees to ACE 2008 are encouraged to contact Liam via the link above. Check out his working papers while you are there. He is doing some great work on competitive balance that will be published later this year and which takes the literature in new directions.

Late Sept / early Oct is a great time of year in Australia so Aussie and international contributors alike are encouraged to attend! The weather is great and sports fans are in for a treat. The Grand Final of the two leading professional football competitions, the Australian Football League and the National Rugby League is held around this time of year, for fans of thoroughbred racing, the Spring Racing Carnival jumps in Victoria and elsewhere and Australia's "Great Race", the Bathurst 1000 for v8 touring cars is just around the corner.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

NFL collective bargaining 

Could the NFL be a salary cap-free league in 2010? The NFL team owners or the NFL Players' Association can unilaterally terminante the collective bargaining agreement before November 8.

In a March 31 press conference NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell (go to the NFL website for some nice video shorts, or USA Today for a summary of some wider NFL issues) set the negotiating scene nicely by suggesting that the salary cap has been good for the NFL and NFL fans, that owners can't buy a championship due to the complex dynamics of the sport of American football, and that owners can't afford to buy a championship anyway (Street & Smith's Sport Business Journal has evidently estimated that the NFL clubs are collectively $US 9 billion in debt).

Do you agree with Commissioner Goodell? Are the NFL's fundamentals? The Commissioner also talked a little about some kind of possible bad hair day policy, so maybe he's just posturing for future bargaining leverage and public support.